Background

In 1844 the newly formed seminary of the German Reformed Church called Philip Schaff to be professor of Church history. After trekking from Berlin to Pennsylvania, Schaff promptly delivered the inaugural lecture for the semester. This lecture, later published with an introduction by Schaff’s colleague John Nevin as The Principle of Protestantism, encapsulated the Reformed, ecumenical, and sacramental emphasis, which came to be known as Mercersburg Theology. Half a century later another European theologian who, like Schaff, was heavily influenced by German Idealism landed on American soil to lecture on a theological system he had been developing in the Netherlands. In these addresses, later published as Lectures on Calvinism, Abraham Kuyper defended a Neo-Calvinistic worldview that was culturally all-encompassing. Christ’s redemption, argued Kuyper, was not limited to the so-called “sacred” or “spiritual” realms, but embraced art, politics, commerce and every sphere in which man is a participant.

To be sure, the legacies of Neo-Calvinism and Mercersburg are not equal in regards to size or influence. While the Dutch Reformed Church has flourished in Europe, South Africa, Canada, and America, Mercersburg theology has never reached more than a modest, albeit fervent, following. In addition to being smaller, the Mercersburg family tree looks very different from that of the Neo-Calvinists. The Mercersburg tree, shaped by more churchly conversations, grew in a more liturgical, ecumenical direction, while the Neo-Calvinist tree bent toward cultural engagement.

My argument is not that the Mercersburg and Neo-Calvinist families are arguing for the same thing only with a different vocabulary. The branches of both trees have reached too many and too far for such a hypothesis to be submitted let alone taken seriously. Rather, my argument is that while the trees do not share identity, they do share similarity. This similarity, far from being coincidental or contrived, I will argue is naturally and organically found in the writings of the Mercersburg and Neo-Calvinist founders. Indeed, it is my contention that the Mercersburg and Neo-Calvinist trees share similar roots and grew in the like soil of a decidedly non-puritanical reading of Calvin.

Thus, what follows is not an attempt to read Nevin as a Dutchman or Kuyper as an Antebellum Presbyterian. Rather, my aim is more modest and will come in three parts. First, I hope to show that both parties were reacting to the same problem; namely, the radical subjectivism produced by the Enlightenment. Second, in contrast to the modern strain of individualism, both parties sought to locate the nexus of ecclesial and epistemological authority squarely in the active, current reign of Jesus. Lastly, I will offer two ways in which both camps could be strengthened by a close reading of one anther’s texts. Such mutual appreciation, I will conclude, will assist both camp’s efforts of faithfulness and relevancy. (more…)

Read more

In the next few weeks, colleges across the country will commence their Fall semester. Many students who grew up in Christian homes will consciously trade in their faith for a philosophical system antithetical to the one of their upbringing. Even more students, however, while not outright denying their Christian faith, will unconsciously adopt a philosophical system that is inherently idolatrous. It’s not that this second group wants to be idolaters; they simply lack the tools to discern the nature of the bill of goods their professor is selling them.

So, how can one know if a given philosophical system (Kantianism, Marxism, Platonism, etc.) is idolatrous? One can begin by asking two questions. First, “is this logical?” Second, “is this sinful?” If the answer is “yes” to the first question, the answer will be “no” to the second question. If the answer is “no” to the first question, the answer will be “yes” to the second question. Here’s a story to illustrate the point:

On her twenty first birthday, Cindy was promised a night on the town with her girlfriends. After dinner, her friends came to her house in a limo, blindfolded her, and took her to Crazy Dave’s Casino (obviously, she had some pretty lame friends…). As they were getting into the limo, they shoved some bills in her purse and said “tonight’s on us!” Once inside, Cindy took off her blindfold. Because there was no signage on the inside of the building, Cindy still wasn’t sure where she was. Eventually, she saw a waitress and asked if she could get something to drink. As she pulled out her wallet to pay, she saw four hundred Crazy Dave’s Casino-Bucks in her purse.

Now, there are only two ways that Cindy could have deduced her location. First, she could have spotted a logo. While it’s true the big Crazy Dave’s sign was outside, there were actually logo’s on the slot machines, napkins, etc. Secondly, of course, she could’ve known by looking at the Crazy Dave’s Casino-Bucks. Her currency could’ve revealed to her the location. Likewise, her location could have told her what sort of currency her friends slipped into her purse. For Cindy to answer the question “am I at Casino Dave’s?” she’d have to look at her currency. For her to answer the question “what sort of currency do I have in my purse?” she’d have to look at the signage.

Back to our original question: how can one know if a given philosophical system is idolatrous? There are at least two ways: Firstly, you can look for signage. Here, you’re trying to determine if the system outrightly advertises itself as sinful. Put simply, this means asking a couple questions of the philosophical system. One question is, “does it enable me to do something God forbids?” Nihilism, for instance, enables one to tear down systems for “tearing’s” sake. Well, some systems need to be torn down, but we’re commanded to obey God’s rule. Any tearing, then, must not be for its own sake, but because we’re seeking a system patterned after the rule of God.

Thus, we know Nihilism is idolatrous because it enables us to do something God forbids.  Another question to ask is, “does the system forbid me from doing something God commands?”  Animism, for instance, is idolatrous because it teaches that everything on the earth, indeed the earth itself, has a soul. Thus, I’m forbidden from, among other things, giving thanks to God. If “Mother Nature” is giving me food, my thanksgiving is directed to the object I’m eating rather than the One who gave me the object to eat. Like Cindy, you’re in a building (the Casino of Idolatry, if you will), and you’re looking for clues as to the nature of the structure.

Secondly, you can look at the currency in which the philosophical system deals. This is crucial because not all philosophical systems are easily detected as “sinful.” Like Cindy in the casino, there isn’t a big Crazy Dave’s sign, and the logos are quite small and inconspicuous. Thus, it won’t do to simply ask “am I in the Casino of Idolatry?” Rather, you’ll have to ask “am I using the currency of the Casino of Idolatry?”

Well, what is the currency of idolatry? In a word, it’s illogicality. If the system is illogical, it is idolatrous. Idolatry is always making a deal in which you trade life for death; the family blessing for some soup. An idolatrous philosophical system never uses the currency of “logic.” Thus, one can ask the question, “Are the propositions which this philosophy proposes logical?” If the answer is “no!” then you can know the system is itself idolatrous. With a little deductive reasoning, one can find idolatry in any illogical statement. Likewise, one can find incoherence in any given expression of idolatry.

Take, for example, the illogicality of Kantianism. In his book on logic (a wonderful resource for any incoming freshman!), Vern Poythress shows how the system is self-defeating (i.e. illogical):

“Kantianism uses reason to build a system that sets the limits of reason. To do so, it has to survey the field. It has to transcend the phenomenal and look at the noumenal realm as well. It has to take a God’s-eye view. This view, once achieved, afterwards allows it to tell you and me the narrower limits in which our reason can safely operate. The God’s-eye view is Kantianism’s secret, and simultaneously its weakest point. Kantianism is self-destructive. In its results, it tells us what are the limitations of reason. If we take those results seriously, we have to apply them to Kantianism’s own reasonings about philosophy. Those reasonings go beyond the limits, and so we conclude that they are not sound.”

Faith is not antithetical to critical reasoning. In fact, faith offers the freshman the tools by which she can fully engage the whole of reality, physical and metaphysical. Or, to stick with our illustration, the biblical faith offers a currency backed by the Creator of the whole world. Thus, spendable not only in “religion class” but in philosophy, art history, economics, and science. Go, then, freshman: study with confidence! Indeed, study in faith.

Read more

On Facebook, I’ve been compiling lists of “go to books” on various topics (apologetics, discipleship, education, etc.). A friend sent me this question: what are your list of “go to living writers/thinkers?” Being a schoolteacher in the Summer, I had the time to give it some thought. At first, I typed out a list of ten names in no particular order: Ken Myers, RC Sproul, NT Wright, John Frame, Eugene Peterson, Robert Barron, Peter Leithart., Alistair Begg, Marilynne Robinson, Os Guinness.

I was relatively happy with the list. It was honest; it reflected those to whom I look and trust. However, after some thought, I deleted the names. In their place I wrote one name: Byron Borger. Of course, one person really isn’t a “list.” One person can’t represent the depth or breadth of a tradition. Yet, I’m confident those familiar with Byron’s work at Hearts and Minds Bookstore will understand my rationale. As I looked over the authors–those people who have been so pivotal to my formation as a Christian, I was struck by something: If I didn’t directly learn about them from Byron, I at least read one of their books at the insistence of one of his brilliant reviews. Just this week, in fact, I started David Dark’s new book at Byron’s recommendation.

For those unfamiliar with the work of the Byron and his wife Beth, Hearts and Minds Books is an independent bookstore located Dallastown, PA going on 30 years. Prior to starting the store, Byron was a college minster with Coalition for Christian Outreach. When you email Byron a question, as I have, you feel his college ministry background. He’s a man who has clearly spent his life engaged with big questions and big ideas. He’s eager to connect just the right person with just the right work. Sure, there are times he gets excited about a particular book and strives to get everyone to read it (i.e. Visions of Vocation), but that’s not his typical MO. Observing from a distance (we’ve never met in person), I’ve found Borger’s vocation to be more similar to a pharmacist than a bookseller. People come to Hearts and Minds with one deficiency or another. After some listening, Borger prescribes just the right supplement of Al Wolters or Richard Middleton or an obscure gem hidden in a tacky dust jacket. (more…)

Read more